European interactions in urban environmental transitions : how Amsterdam and Brussels govern the circular economy

(1)

European Interactions

In

Urban Environmental Transitions

How Amsterdam and Brussels govern the Circular Economy

Barbara Koole

MSc Thesis Political Science

Public Policy & Governance track

Word count 21.745

June 2017

Supervisor: Prof. dr. Jonathan Zeitlin

Second Reader: dr. Rosa Sanchez Salgado

(2)

Glossary

AMEC Amsterdam Economic Board

ASC Amsterdam Smart City

CE Circular Economy

COP Community of Practice

COR Committee of the Regions

EC European Commission

EU European Union

EU-SDS European Union Sustainable Development Strategy

NMG New Mode of Governance

TMN Transnational Municipal Network

List of Tables & Figures

Table 4.1 Overview Interviews 26

Table 5.1 Timeline CE Amsterdam 30

Table 5.2 Partnerships CE Amsterdam 32

Table 6.1 Organization CE program Brussels

38

(3)

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank my supervisor, prof. Jonathan Zeitlin, for his guidance and

support throughout this research project. I would also like to thank my second

reader, dr. Rosa Sanchez Salgado, for taking the time to read my work.

Furthermore, I would like to thank all my interviewees from Amsterdam and

Brussels for taking part in this project. It would not have been possible without

your generous participation. Finally, I would like to thank my friends and family

and especially my friend Jip for always motivating me, even during such a difficult

personal time.

(4)

Abstract

This thesis focuses on how local governments deal with new modes of governance to tackle environmental issues. In doing so, it explores the

interactions between local governments and the EU on the one hand, and non-state actors on the other hand. It focuses specifically interest on the barriers that are encountered to enable learning in this field. Amsterdam’s and Brussels’ CE Strategies are used as case studies, since they are frontrunners in the field and can be regarded critical cases. After tracing the development of the policies in these two cities, Experimentalist Governance (Sabel & Zeitlin, 2008) is used as a framework to explore mechanisms that are missing to enable recursive learning. It concludes that enhanced coordination and increased resource capacity are necessary to enable a transition towards a CE in Europe’s urban regions.

(5)

1. Introduction

1.1 Urban Environmental Governance in the EU

Cities are central nodes in environmental governance, as the majority of the world’s population lives in urban environments and many environmental problems find their roots in an urban context. For this reason, urban environmental governance has been on the rise since the late 1980s and that the initiatives to tackle these issues have accelerated in the last decade. Amongst others, Benjamin Barber’s book If Mayors ruled the world has contributed to increased attention to urban governance of global issues. In this book, he proposes a shift in power and authority from the national towards the municipal level for 21st_{century issues such as climate change and other}

major environmental challenges (Barber, 2013).

Simultaneously to the increased attention for the role of municipal government in tackling environmental issues, the policy context of European cities has increasingly acquired a larger European dimension. Increased EU regulation and influence present both possibilities and challenges for local policy makers. Examples are European environmental regulations and directives that guide action, whereas European funding presents opportunities to support city-level projects. Furthermore, Europeanization has increased the links between cities, both through official EU institutions like the Committee of the Regions (COR), and through Transnational Municipal Networks (TMNs). As Peter John already wrote in 2000:

The creation and development of the European Union (EU), which has legal powers over nation-states, has profound implications for the sub-national politics of the 15 member-states and the new entrants. Even if the EU has relatively few responsibilities compared with nation-states, it creates a different basis for the exercise of political power and authority

(John, 2000: 878)

This research explores the changing policy context for environmental governance in EU cities and the consequences this has for policy making at the local government level. In order to do this, the Circular Economy (CE) programs of Amsterdam and Brussels are used as case studies. The research will focus specifically on the effects that new modes of governance have on enabling recursive learning in the governance process. In order to do so, the Experimentalist Governance framework (Sabel & Zeitlin, 2008) will be employed, as it describes a governance architecture that redefines the relation between center and frontline, while enabling a move towards ‘deliberative problem solving’ (Sabel & Zeitlin, 2008: 280).

This approach serves both theoretical and empirical purposes. When it comes to theory, the aim is twofold: on the one hand to contribute to the understanding of recursive learning in

(8)

multi-level environmental governance, and on the other hand to explore the applicability of Experimentalist Governance principles for local level governments. The practical aim of this research approach is to provide insights into improvements that can be made to the current governance structure of CE in European cities.

1.2 Circular Economy

Policy initiatives for the CE have simultaneously emerged at local, national and EU levels and in public as well as private domains. These developments have been stimulated by growing awareness about resource scarcity as one of the main environmental problems and the upcoming CE paradigm. The Ellen MacArthur Foundation, a private English NGO, introduced CE as a concept. The concept has gained influence in both the public and the private sectors; this is reflected in their supporters, which include both multinational companies like Nike and Unilever and a large variety of governmental actors (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, n.d. a).

The CE presents a vision of ‘closing loops’ where waste becomes a resource for a new production process, thus combining the elimination of wasteful practices and resource scarcity, with the possibility for profit and economic growth. There is not one agreed definition or conceptualization of the CE. Whereas some define it as a new vision for stimulating recycling, others have a much broader view in which the CE implies a transition to an entirely differently organized society (Rizos et.al., 2017; Guardian, 2015). This broader vision includes changes in industry, manufacturing, consumption, business models, infrastructure and society in general. Despite these two different approaches, it is generally agreed that the overall ambition of the CE is to move towards a more resource-efficient economy and society (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, n.d. b).

The European Commission presented its CE package in 2015, initiated by Vice President Timmermans. This package provides a framework for member states to work toward a CE and introduced the concept on a European level as an addition to existing programs like the Waste Framework Directive and the Integrated Product Policy (European Commission, 2015a). Furthermore, in 2016 a EU CE partnership of several municipalities and member states was launched as part of the EU Urban Agenda (European Commission, n.d. a). Moreover, there are pre-existing initiatives on the European level: a partnership between the local governments of London, Amsterdam and Copenhagen for knowledge sharing about the CE and several initiatives of transnational municipal networks like Eurocities and ACR+ that deal with these

(9)

At a national level there are also several countries that have adopted the CE concept in their policies. Sweden introduced a special CE tax in 2016 and the Netherlands has a government framework program for the CE (Koole & Hult, 2017; Ministerie van Infrastructuur & Milieu, 2017). Finally, on a subnational level there are also an increasing amount of public strategies and programs for the CE. Examples include Glasgow, Amsterdam and Brussels that have presented roadmaps and attached programs to move towards a CE (Circle Economy, n.d.).

Besides public initiatives and official policies there is also a plethora of NGOs and businesses that have adopted the CE paradigm. These include both small-scale initiatives such as start-ups with innovative business models and non-profit community projects, as well as large companies like Unilever that attempt to adopt CE principles in their businesses. The diverse CE community ranges from sharing economy initiatives, for example car sharing and neighborhood borrowing schemes, to technological innovations such as 3D printing and new recycling techniques (Accenture, 2014).

This brief introduction to CE initiatives is illustrative of the wide variety of actors, initiatives, concepts and institutions relevant for the governance of policy issues in European cities. With the abundance of developments, it becomes interesting to make sense of the dynamics between these. How do you govern an urban region and adapt it towards a more resource efficient system in this context? This research makes sense of this increasingly multi-polar governance system, in which a diverse range of actors takes part in governing. As decentralization or subsidiarity, and Europeanization go hand in hand, the relation between subnational and European actors becomes a key field of interest.

1.3 Research Question

This research explores the influence that new modes of governance have on the reality of environmental governance in two European cities. In doing so it focuses on the substance of the policy and how the adaptive or recursive learning potential, and thus ultimately the quality of local environmental governance, can be enhanced. I will use the CE policies in Amsterdam and Brussels as examples to explore the following questions:

 How have the policies of Amsterdam and Brussels developed in the field of the CE?

 What role have interactions with EU institutions and non-state actors played in this process?

(10)

 How can these interactions be characterized in governance-theoretic terms?

 What have been the consequences of such multi-level, multi-actor interactions for enabling recursive learning in the local governance of the CE?

Before I move on to a further elaboration on the theoretical framework and methodology employed in this research, I will discuss relevant literature and explain how this research fits into the existing body of knowledge in the field.

(11)

2. Literature Review

In this chapter I will review previous literature on the topics of interest in this research. Firstly, I will focus on the role of cities and urban governance in the EU context; following this, I will review previous works on CE governance. Through this effort, the scientific relevance of this research will be defined.

2.1 Local Environmental Governance in the European Union

This research takes a special interest in the interactive dynamics between the EU and local authorities. Although much of the Europeanization literature has focused on the relation between member states and European institutions, it has been argued over the years that European dynamics are not limited to these levels. Several authors have emphasized the importance of European dynamics for local levels of government (John, 2000; Kern & Bulkeley, 2009; Dossi, 2017).

Dossi (2017) rightfully points out that the relation between cities and the EU is not limited to EU instruments that formally focus on cities. Examples of policy schemes that explicitly address subnational governments include the cohesion funds and the Urban Agenda. In order to avoid a bias towards such explicitly urban-focused EU policies, this research will use policy problems as a starting point, rather than specific platforms, programs or institutions.

However, local governments and the EU encounter each other in multiple settings and in a multitude of manners. Four different ideal typical modes of Europeanization are distinguished: ideation, distribution, regulation and coordination (Dossi, 2017: 38). These modes represent different possible encounters between cities and the EU: ideation focuses on transmission of policy programs and instruments; regulation focuses on EU rules influencing the policy making context of cities; coordination portrays arenas characterized by fixed distribution of preferences, where gains can be exploited from coordination; finally, distribution represents those cases where interactions take the shape of bargaining (Dossi, 2017: 39-43). Through researching policymaking in these specific policy areas on an urban level it becomes possible to explore the current modes of interaction and the hitches experienced on the road.

Kern & Bulkeley (2009) identify three different directions of dynamics in relations between EU and local authorities: firstly, top-down vertical Europeanization where EU institutions influence the policy context of local authorities, for example through the EU’s legal and financial instruments; secondly, bottom-up vertical Europeanization where local authorities influence European decision-making; and finally horizontal Europeanization where local authorities

(12)

cooperate transnationally. Such horizontal Europeanization is typical of new forms of ‘networked’ governance and often includes non-state actors. Typically, Transnational Municipal Networks (TMNs) play a central role in such horizontal Europeanization. TMNs have been characterized as:

i) consisting of member cities that are autonomous and voluntarily join the network;

ii) having a non-hierarchical, polycentric and horizontal structure and hence suggesting a form of self-governance;

iii) intentionally designed so that decisions taken within the network are implemented by their members

(Fünfgeld, 2015: 68)

Many TMNs focus on climate change and related issues; examples include ICLEI and C40. Other TMNs such as Eurocities cover a wider range of governance topics. The role of TMNs in environmental governance in the EU has recently received increased attention and has been discussed and characterized as practicing ‘governance through diffusion’ – which means ‘favorably

altering the context of unilateral and voluntary decisions by [. . .] governments to adopt a given policy innovation’

(Busch & Jörgens, 2012: 291-292). Through this diffusion, processes of interdependent but uncoordinated adoptions of certain policies are accelerated (Hakelberg, 2014: 110). TMNs can be regarded a complementary type of actor to official EU bodies like the Committee of the Regions (COR) and the covenant of mayors, since they focus primarily on the exchange of best practices, rather than on representation of the interests of their member cities (Fünfgeld, 2015; Bouteligier, 2013; Hakelberg, 2014; Gordon, 2013).

In this respect, it is interesting to review what is known about the role of the official body representing subnational governments in the EU system: the COR, which plays a consulting role in EU politics. As Schönlau (2017) notes, the role of the COR in the EU system is often dismissed as being ‘minor’ (2017: 1167). However, in recent years the COR has initiated more independent actions and the role of subnational governments in EU policymaking is increasingly appreciated. Part of the explanation for this increased appreciation is an increased recognition that local actors are crucial in combatting climate change and other environmental problems (Schönlau, 2017: 1177). However, it has been noted that this appreciation is not yet fully integrated and still depends largely on pro-activeness or institutional activism from the COR and the regional governments (Hönnige & Panke, 2016; Schönlau, 2017; Tatham, 2015).

(13)

Moreover, this study relates to the understanding of the role of urban governments in governance for sustainable transitions. The move towards a CE can be conceptualized as a technical transition, which positions technological change in relation to wider socio-political-economic ‘systems’ (Hodson & Marvin, 2010: 479; see also: Grin et.al., 2010; Geels, 2002). As Raven (2016) notes, a focus on city-level sustainable transitions is relatively new in the transition studies literature (see for example: Jhagroe, 2016; Rohracher et.al., 2014; Hodson & Marvin, 2010). Raven thus argues that there is a large need for further research into governance for sustainable transitions on an urban level. This research does not specifically employ a transition studies framework, but does attempt to enhance the understanding of governance for sustainability on the level of local, urban governments. In doing so, it aims to contribute insights to the emerging field of urban transition studies.

Conclusively, this section has explicated how this study is placed on the intercrossing of the literature on EU governance on one hand and literature on socio-technical transitions on the other hand, both of which call for extra attention to the role of local governments.

2.2 Circular Economy Policy

As described in Chapter 1, the CE concept has gained traction in recent years, both in policy practice and in academia (see for example: Piscicelli et.al, 2016; Webster, 2013; Gregson et.al., 2015). This section reviews some of the main ongoing discussions and identifies a relative gap in the literature on the dynamics between local governments and the EU in this issue field.

Although the CE is a relatively new term, it builds on several previous conceptualizations. Foremost, it is based on the literature on industrial ecology, which has a technical perspective on resource efficiency and focuses on combining industrial processes in an ecologically sound manner (Gregson et.al, 2015). Other related fields are product life-cycle design, cradle-to-cradle design and industrial symbiosis. Furthermore, it relates to previous research into waste management and recycling policies (Bekin et.al, 2007; Bulkeley et.al., 2009).

The CE can be regarded as an umbrella term that comprises many sub-activities and focus areas. This has led to criticism of the concept, for staying too vague and not enabling international comparison. Rizos et.al. (2017) make a useful distinction between three main subcategories of CE processes:

i) using less primary resources

ii) maintaining the highest value of materials and products iii) changing utilization patterns

(14)

As becomes clear from these three main categories, the term bundles several fairly distinct processes that all aim at a more resource efficient system, whilst enabling economic growth. This underlines the complexity of the field, since many different actors and types of expertise are involved.

The recycling of waste materials is one of the central activities in the CE and while there is a lot of knowledge available at different scales and locations, municipalities are commonly the actors that regulate and organize waste management in their constituencies. This places them at the center of the action in this issue field. More generally, the causes of climate change have an intrinsic spatial dimension, which asks for action in specific places and thus creates responsibility for local governments (Bulkeley & Betsill, 2003). However, as Rizos et.al. (2017) demonstrate, CE research has thus far mostly focused on national level governments and the EU (Rizos et.al., 2017: 20). This underlines the relevance of this research’s focus on the role of local governments in the field of the CE.

Overall, this literature review has provided the reader with insight into previous studies on the topic of this research. What has become clear is that a specific study into the enabling of recursive learning for local governments in the EU context contributes to both the literature on local environmental governance in the EU and to that on governance for the CE. Furthermore, the adoption of an Experimentalist Governance perspective on this topic is new. The following chapter will argue why the Experimentalist Governance framework will be used and what it consists of.

(15)

3. Theoretical Framework

In this theoretical framework I will introduce and operationalize the key concepts and theories that underpin this research. Through this, the focus of this research will be clarified and accounted for. Successively, the conceptualizations of New Modes of Governance (NMGs) in the EU, Policy Entrepreneurship, Environmental Policy Integration, Recursive Learning and Experimentalist Governance will be discussed.

3.1 New Modes of governance in the EU

New modes of governance are a central feature in this research; however NMG is considered a contested concept. A variety of NMGs have developed within the EU; this means that civil servants, as well as other actors, have to act under new governance circumstances. As NMGs have come up, many characterizations and definitions have been established. It is for this reason that I will use this section to give a clear insight in my conceptualization of NMGs, which will account for the focus of this research.

Broadly speaking, NMGs can be characterized as a move away from hierarchical governance towards different types of more flexible governance. Craig and de Burca (2011) define NMGs through contrasting them with a traditional mode of hierarchical governing. They characterize archetypical hierarchical governance as top-down, prescriptive and legally binding. Hierarchical Governance thus implies firstly a focus on a central actor, in the case of this research context the EU and the respective national governments; secondly, relatively little room for discretion on lower levels of government; and thirdly, legally enforceable rules and regulation (Craig & de Burca, 2011: 160).

As to the legality of governance Craig and de Burca (ibid) make a specific remark that NMGs do not necessarily mean that top-down legal enforcement disappears; instead, with ‘a move away from

hierarchical governance’ they mean that more alternatives to such traditional governance tactics

emerge, but do not claim that it always replaces them (Craig & de Burca, 2011: 159-60). Following their argument, NMGs can be defined as the opposite ideal type to hierarchical governance. This firstly includes a multiplicity of actors in governance; secondly, it has more discretion for lower levels of government; and finally, legal authority is not centralized in all instances.

Bartolini (2011) argues that it is important to assess the viability, quality and effectiveness of such NMGs (2011: 1). He identifies several characteristics of NMGs in the EU: co-production of

(16)

policy with non-state actors; a changing nature and role of sanctions in governance; less institutionalized interaction between actors; and more open, flexible and modifiable implementation of policy (Bartolini, 2011: 10-11). His characterization thus has a similar core focus on flexibility and involvement of multiple types of actors as Craig and de Burca’s (2011). This focus on flexibility as the core-defining feature of NMGs diverges from previous definitions that emphasized ‘soft law’ and ‘voluntarism’ and emphasized that NMGs are not legally binding (Kohler-Koch & Rittberger, 2006: 36). However, there are also several similarities in different characterizations of NMGs, such as the inclusion of a wide variety of actors and the subsidiarity principle (Kohler-Koch & Rittberger, 2006: 37).

In addition to the NMG characteristics, it is important to be aware of the multi-level context of any policy process within the EU, which can either take a more hierarchical, ‘nested’ shape or a more flexible and issue-specific shape. Hooghe and Marks (2003) distinguish between the former as type I multi-level governance and the latter as type II multi-level governance (Hooghe & Marks, 2003: 236). Their characterization has become influential in the literature on multi-level governance.

Bulkeley and Betsill (2013) critique Hooghe and Marks‘s approach to multi-level governance, for not adequately encompassing the co-production feature typical of new modes of governance. They argue that in multi-level governance settings, especially where municipal governments are involved, it is of key importance to broaden the scope of the research to include actors outside of the official authorities and channels. They argue that there is a growing role of non-state actors in environmental governance. This includes both private actors that for example develop new forms of private environmental regulation or take part in carbon markets, and civil society actors that develop new initiatives or are otherwise active in environmental action. They thus argue that research needs to move away from placing governmental authorities at the heart of the analysis, and instead take a broader and more actor-inclusive perspective (Bulkeley & Betsill, 2013: 144). Building on this approach, I will pay specific attention to the manner in which local governmental authorities interact, and co-produce environmental governance with different types of non-state actors in the multi-level governance context.

Based on this discussion, I take the features of flexibility, co-production of governance with non-governmental actors and coordinated decentralization as central aspects of my use of the NMG concept. In the research, I will thus focus on a combination of flexible level and

(17)

multi-3.2 Policy Entrepreneurs & Environmental Policy Integration

Governance of environmental issues, such as the CE that is studied in this research, usually requires cooperation and policy diffusion that transcends traditional institutional boundaries. In order to characterize this process, and the difficulties that are encountered in practice in the two case studies, I will use notions about policy entrepreneurship and cross-sectoral policy integration. This section introduces the concepts and clarifies the manner in which they are used in this study.

Environmental policy integration (EPI) focuses on the challenges that arise from policy programs that require cooperation between different departments. The deviation from current organizational structures leads to a necessity for new structures and procedures, to enable coordinated governance (Jordan & Lenschow, 2010: 150). It has been argued that there has not been enough attention for the administrative capacities that are necessary in NMGs (Schout et.al., 2010: 155-156). This reflects the focus of this research on the capacities of local governments in environmental governance in a flexible multi-level and multi-actor context. An important distinction that has been made in this strand of literature is between cross-departmental coordination on a strategic level and on a day-to-day policy making level. Previous research shows that a combination of these two levels serves the goal of enabling coordinated governance the best, but in practice mechanisms such as interdepartmental working groups are often limited to the day-to-day policy making and fail to be introduced on a strategic level (Jordan & Lenschow 2010: 151; Schout & Jordan, 2008: 165). In the analysis of this research this same distinction will be used in order to examine the policy diffusion.

Furthermore, EPI literature points at the cognitive aspects of cross-departmental policy diffusion. This refers to the frames of reference from which actors think and how these are often influenced by their specific policy sector. This implies that a restructuring should not only comprehend institutional changes but also focus on diffusion of a new concept and frame of thought (Lenschow, 2002). This is especially important with relatively new concepts, with which many stakeholders are not yet familiar, let alone have it integrated in their frame of reference. This specifically applies to the CE. Thus, the cognitive aspects of policy diffusion will also be integrated in the analysis of this research.

I will combine these notions on EPI with insights from literature on policy entrepreneurship, which is a concept from the agenda-setting literature. Policy entrepreneurs are commonly defined as ‘people who seek to initiate dynamic policy change through attempting to win support for ideas for

(18)

policy innovation’ (Kingdon, 1984; Mintrom, 1997). Such policy entrepreneurs are said to play a

crucial role in both agenda setting and in the diffusion of innovative practices (Mintrom, 1997). Or as Roberts and King phrase it: ‘the entrepreneur provides a learning and adaptive capacity for the policy

system, indeed, for societies as a whole’ (Robert & King, 1991:149).

In this study, I follow Mintrom’s position that policy entrepreneurs can be actors at any position within the government and thus do not reserve it exclusively use it to describe legislators (1997: 740-41). More specifically, the concept will be used to conceptualize the role of early adopters within the governmental organizations. Therefore, I will use a combination of insights from EPI and policy entrepreneurship in order to explore the mechanisms of policy diffusion and integration.

3.3 Recursive Learning

This section will explain this research’s main focus on recursive learning, and how it is conceptualized throughout this study. It will first argue why an understanding of learning mechanisms is crucial to make sense of the governance of large scale societal change, such as the transition towards a CE. Following this, the theoretical approaches to learning mechanisms that are employed in this research will be explained.

The focal point of this study is how local governments enhance change towards a CE. I argue that we can characterize the CE concept as a mobilizing future vision, which can serve as an enabler of change. Building on this proposition, a tension is shown between this mobilizing power and the adaptive learning capacity of the governance system. This provides the argumentation for this study’s focus on understanding learning mechanisms.

The CE can be regarded as a mobilizing future vision, which pictures an ideal, but not necessarily completely realistic, situation of a world in which resources can be endlessly repurposed and gain value. ‘Projectivity’ is a term that can be used for the process of associated structural change that starts from a mobilizing future vision. It supposes that a common goal can have a mobilizing, as well as uniting, effect on a diverse group of people (Lisandrello & Grin, 2011: 242). The projectivity concept proposes that such future visions enable sustainable transitions, and are thus regarded as means, rather than as goals. Applied to this research, the CE is the mobilizing future vision that is used to move from the problem of resource scarcity towards the goal of resource efficiency.

(19)

However, there are also risks connected to dominant projected future visions, foremost because of a possible failure to incorporate a diversity of perspectives:

As a result, a theoretical (as well as regulatory) monoculture may lead to frighteningly high correlations in our responses to unexpected common shocks, increasing the risk of social and economic destabilization if the theoretical framework is misleading in some significant way (Bronk & Jacoby, 2013: 14)

Bronk and Jacoby (2013) continue their argument by proposing that ‘modeling pluralism, disciplined

eclecticism and constant experimentation with new conceptual frameworks and perspectives’ are ways to reduce

such risks. They also argue that the EU is specifically and uniquely equipped to facilitate such modeled pluralism and experimentation (Bronk & Jacoby, 2013: 14). Moreover, it has been argued that the increasing uncertainty due to climate and global change turns the ability of governance systems to deal with uncertainty and surprise into an essential requirement. Polycentric system structures and decentralized control facilitate this ability, which ‘leads to a

higher degree of adaptiveness and robustness of a system’ (Pahl-Wostl, 2009: 355-57, see also: Grunwald,

2004).

Based on the combination of this argument of the mobilizing power of future visions on the one hand, and the importance of facilitating diversity and adaptability on the other hand, this research project takes a specific focus on the learning processes of multiple subnational governments within the EU. A constant in the different arguments is the emphasis on institutional capacity for adaptiveness and learning, which underpins the conceptualization of recursive learning in this study. In the following section I will introduce the framework that is employed in order to study this.

3.4 Experimentalist Governance

In this research I will use Experimentalist Governance (Sabel & Zeitlin, 2008) as a framework to evaluate the urban CE governance dynamics. I believe that this will be a valuable addition to current knowledge on urban environmental governance, because it offers insights in how governance processes can be structured in a way that works towards framework goals, whilst enabling learning from diversity. This relates to the possible tension that was described in the previous section between projectivity and recursiveness.

Sabel and Zeitlin (2008) identify strategic uncertainty and a polyarchic power distribution as two strategic conditions for the applicability of Experimentalist Governance. Strategic uncertainty is

(20)

defined as a situation where ‘policy makers recognize that they cannot rely on their strategic dispositions (eg

more market vs more plan) to guide action in a particular domain (or equivalently that they do not know how to achieve their declared goals)’ (Sabel & Zeitlin, 2008: 280). The second precondition of a polyarchic

power distribution is defined as follows: ‘no single actor has the capacity to impose her own preferred

solution without taking into account the views of the others which are apparent in this case study’ (Ibid: 280).

Experimentalist Governance includes four institutional mechanisms that together establish the architecture of a governance system that aims for ‘transforming distributive bargaining into deliberative

problem solving’ (Sabel & Zeitlin, 2008: 280). First, broad and provisional framework goals and

metrics need to be established by actors at different levels of government, as well as in consultation with non-state actors; second, lower-level units need to have broad discretion to develop their own strategy for pursuing the framework goals and targets; third, these lower-level units are required to report their results regularly and to engage in a peer review of the results, and, if necessary, take appropriate corrective measures, which are informed by the results of the peer review; fourth and finally, the framework goals and the procedures are periodically revised based on the reporting and peer review (Sabel & Zeitlin, 2012: 169-70).

However, these elements have to be understood in functional, rather than structural or institutional terms. This means that Experimentalist Governance does not prescribe specifically detailed policy tools or organization forms, but rather an overall functional architecture (Sabel & Zeitlin, 2008: 273-4). The practices of actors involved in this functional experimentalist architecture are described as follows:

They systematically provoke doubt about their own assumptions and practices, treat all solutions as incomplete and corrigible, and produce an ongoing, reciprocal readjustment of ends and means through comparison of different approaches to advancing common general aims (Sabel & Zeitlin, 2012: 170)

As Sabel and Victor (2016) have argued, Experimentalist Governance is very suitable for climate change governance because of its decentralized and flexible features combined with effective review mechanisms. They apply the Experimentalist Governance framework to the 2015 Paris Agreement on combatting Climate Change, and characterize experimentalism as ‘collaborative

exploration’, and as a shift in policy efforts from ‘massive, grand challenges’ towards ‘smaller,

(21)

efficient system can be seen as a similar ‘grand challenge’ as combatting climate change, on which I will reflect more in the analysis of this research report.

In the case of CE within the EU, I am specifically interested in the links between decentralized experimentation and central coordination and goal setting. I believe that Experimentalist Governance can provide a ‘bridge’ between literature on urban environmental governance (Healey, 2004; Bulkeley & Castan Broto, 2013) on the one hand, and new modes of governance in the EU (Bartolini, 2011; Craig & de Burca, 2011) on the other hand.

(22)

4. Research Design

4.1 Case Study Selection

The central goal of this research is of an exploratory and ‘theory-building’ nature, namely to find out how flexible multi-level and multi-actor interactions affect local governments’ adaptive capacity in the field of environmental governance. The study aims to understand two empirical cases, and explore the mechanisms at work through a comparison. This means that the research design takes the shape of a comparative, qualitative, case-based approach. This has an inductive design, which means that emphasis is placed on the generation of theories (Bryman, 2012: 36). This research takes a case-oriented strategy, based on a Weberian logic, which ‘seeks to understand

a complex unity rather than establish relationships between variables’ (Della Porta, 2008: 204). Such

case-oriented research constitutes the cases while sharpening the used concepts (Ragin, 2004: 126). In doing so, two leading or paradigmatic cases have been selected, because these represent instances where the phenomenon that is of interest in this research occurs. As Mahoney and Goertz (2006) phrase it: ‘if you want to explain certain outcomes, it is natural to choose cases that exhibit those

outcomes’ (Mahoney and Goertz, 2006: 239). Amsterdam and Brussels represent such paradigmatic

cases, because they have relatively further developed CE strategies compared to other comparable cities in the EU.

Additionally, the cases can be viewed as critical cases, which as Flyvberg (2011) describes is not mutually exclusive with a paradigmatic case study design (2011: 308). Such a critical case study design builds on the logic that if something can be proven false in the most favorable case, it will most likely also be false in less favorable cases (Flyvberg, 2011: 304). Because this research focuses on the implications of the current governance architecture for recursive learning, it is interesting to explore if barriers for such learning are experienced in cases that are ahead of others. Reasoning from the critical case study design, it would then be safe to assume that peers with less developed CE strategy would experience similar barriers.

I thus argue that exploring the ways Amsterdam and Brussels implement their strategies for the CE in a multi-level governance context, and the implications this process has for learning, is also relevant for other European cities. Through determining both success factors and key issues in these two rather well developed cases, insight can be created which may be the start for more elaborate and large N research.

(23)

experimental setting with different dependent as well as independent variables. However, this study prioritizes the internal validity of the findings in the two case studies over external validity, and the possibility to broadly generalize the findings. Following the outcomes of this comparative case study, a larger N study could be considered to enable generalization, which however goes well beyond the scope of this particular project.

Following these considerations, I have selected two European cities of comparable size and with relatively developed CE policies, namely Amsterdam1_{and Brussels}2_{. To enable the comparison, I}

will look at the local activities in these two cities, as well as the influence of EU-level governance, which includes factors such as the European Commission’s CE Package, the Horizon 2020 program and the Waste Framework Directive. The combination of these two case studies also enables me to explore the influence of different subnational governmental arrangements on the role of municipal governments, since Belgium has a federal system and the Netherlands is more centralized.

The first case study is Amsterdam, which is proposed as a frontrunner in the field of CE, as well as European cooperation. Its CE frontrunner position can be observed from amongst others Amsterdam’s designation as 2016 European Innovation Capital and its strategic program on CE. Furthermore, it’s relatively developed European cooperation feature can be observed from the role Amsterdam played in the establishment of the 2016 EU Urban Agenda, its long time Eurocities membership and its CE partnership with Copenhagen and London. A big part of Amsterdam’s CE activities are taking place in the governance context of the Metropole Region Amsterdam (MRA)3_{, which consists of Amsterdam and its neighboring municipalities.}

The second case study will be Brussels, that also presented a large-scale CE strategy in 2015, followed by the first implementation stage in 2016. This strategy is implemented in the greater region of Brussels, rather than only in the municipality’s borders. The program is a cooperation

1_{779.808 inhabitants}

2_{1.163.486 inhabitants}

(24)

of the subnational government and several non-state actors. Besides this central program there also exist other initiatives in Brussels such as the port’s CE charter4_.

4.2 Research Methods

In order to answer the research questions that were formulated in the introduction to this research report, a combination of qualitative research methods have been applied. This section gives a concise argumentation as to why these methods were chosen.

A combination of elite interviewing and process tracing is used. Process tracing is a method to analyze complex political phenomena and uncover decision-making processes and causal mechanisms (Vennesson, 2008: 232; Tansey, 2007: 771). Especially the first research question that was formulated in this report is a typical process-tracing question, because it focuses on how Amsterdam and Brussels’ policies for the CE have developed. But also the questions focusing on the interactions between local governments and both the EU and non-state actors, and the question focusing on the implications of the current governance structure on the learning processes can be answered using this method.

As Tansey (2007) points out, it is of great value to not only base a process-tracing research on written data such as archives and news articles, but rather also involve interviews with key participants in the events in question in order to triangulate the findings (Tansey, 2007: 771). She argues that when using qualitative interviewing in the context of process tracing, this means that the sampling of interviewees needs to be carefully considered, and based on a combination of reputational and positional criteria (Tansey, 2007: 769-70).

For this research, qualitative semi-structured interviews were held with stakeholders from both cases, as well as at the European level. In selecting the interview candidates, efforts were made to include people from different departments within the local governments from Amsterdam and Brussels. In addition, in both cities interviews were conducted with non-governmental actors that are active in the field. Because of the explorative nature of the research the interviews were semi-structured, focusing on questions regarding the different research questions, but open to unexpected insights from the interviewees (Bryman, 2008: 436).

4 http://www.leefmilieu.brussels/themas/duurzame-economie/gewestelijk-programma-voor-circulaire-economie

(25)

In addition to these interviews, policy documents and news articles were analyzed. This served both to falsify the statements that were made by the interviewees, and to find additional information that had not been mentioned in the interviews. Because after considerable effort it did not prove to be possible to conduct an interview with a representative of the EC, their activities have been analyzed through the use of official policy documents.

4.3 Interviews

Table 4.1 offers an overview of the interviews that were conducted for this research. The final column shows the codes that will be used to reference them throughout this research report.

Sladjana

Mijatovic Amsterdam Program Manager _{CE /CTO office} Municipality of _Amsterdam AMS1

Jan Heijns Amsterdam Sustainability _Programmer Pakhuis de _Zwijger PdZ 1

Marjolein Brasz Amsterdam Circular Business _Connector _{Economic Board}Amsterdam AMEB

Albert van Winden Amsterdam Program Manager Waste Chain Municipality of Amsterdam AMS2

Charlot van der

Schans Amsterdam ProgrammerEurope Pakhuis de Zwijger PdZ 2

Gaetan Vanloqueren Brussels Cabinet Employee Economic Affairs Regional government of Brussels Bru Piet van

Meerbeek Brussels Environmental coordinator BRAL Brussel BRAL Anthony

Naralingom Brussels Coordinator CE Impulse Brussels ImpBru Justus Schonlau EU level Political Advisor Committee of the _Regions COR

Joanna Cruz EU level Policy Officer CE Eurocities Eurocities

(26)

5. Circular Economy in Amsterdam

This chapter describes how the CE policy in Amsterdam has developed and which activities and institutions it comprises. The relevance of this part is to provide a context for the further analysis, as well as gain insight in how a large-scale environmental policy program comes about on a local level. Combined with the next two chapters, which focus on the Brussels case study and a comparison between the two cases, it will provide answers to the first two research questions: how the CE policies have developed in these two cities and what role interactions with EU institutions and non-state actors have played in this process.

5.1 Development of Circular Economy Policy

This section will trace the process leading up to the current CE policy, using information from interviews with stakeholders within and outside of the local government, official policy documents and news articles. In doing so, it introduces the reader with a background to the analysis that follows, both in terms of the different relevant actors, and in terms of the timeline of the policy’s development.

The municipal elections in 2014 marked a major political change for Amsterdam. For the first time since 1949 the Labor party (PvdA) did not become the largest party in the council. It meant a victory for the progressive social-liberal party (D66) (Parool, 2014). One of the main innovations in the new coalition was that they installed the first ever alderman for sustainability. Environmental policy thus promised to become one of the main focus points for the new government. Following the instalment of the coalition, Amsterdam launched a sustainability agenda in March 2015. This agenda covered four main sustainability topics: air quality, sustainable energy, climate adaptation and the CE. It set goals for all of these topics that need to be reached by 2020 or 2025. These goals were divided in quantitative and qualitative goals; the relevant quantitative goals for the CE are 65% household waste separation by 2020 and 45% less CO2 emissions by 2025. The relevant qualitative goals are the realization of a CE through new types of production, distribution and services; and the reorganization of public procurement to comply with the CE goals (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2015).

During the interviews conducted for this research, this political momentum was often mentioned as one of the main reasons for the explicit focus on the CE. Through an outspoken sustainability agenda this new coalition could frame itself as a sustainable frontrunner and break with previous policies. Furthermore, the CE concept lends itself very well to public-private cooperation because it aims to combine environmental and economic gains. This suits the social-liberal

(27)

(Interview PdZ 1; Interview PdZ 2; Interview AMS 1). Additionally, the fact that GroenLinks (the Green Party) was not part of the coalition may have created additional pressure on the coalition to show that it could achieve environmental goals.

However, it was also noted by several respondents that a large sense of urgency already existed in the private sector before the presentation of the sustainability agenda, most prominently amongst the utility firms. This is believed to have contributed prominently to the establishment of a CE policy as well. Amongst others Waternet, the water company in Amsterdam and the surrounding area, was already developing circular innovations that can be exported in the future. But there was no clear public policy on this issue (Interview AMS 1; Interview PdZ 1). Additionally, the public debate about the transition towards a CE was already gaining traction. An illustration of this is the regular program series on the ‘Circular City’ that the well-visited debate center Pakhuis de Zwijger has been organizing since 2013 (Interview PdZ 1).

Following the presentation of the sustainability agenda, Amsterdam’s CE program started off with an extensive research into the region’s CE potential. The research was initiated by the municipality of Amsterdam, but executed on the scale of the Metropole Region of Amsterdam (MRA). The MRA consists of 33 municipalities - which includes Almere, Zaanstad, Haarlem and Hilversum - and is a cooperation platform for economy, mobility and spatial planning (MRA, n.d.). This integrated regional approach reflects the principle of the CE to close material cycles on a local scale. Such a local scale needs to go beyond municipal borders because a circular system needs to cover both urban centers, periphery, industrial and agricultural sites.

The MRA CE research was executed in cooperation with the design studio Fabric, the consultancy agency Circle Economy and the research institute TNO. The involvement of these non-state actors from the early stage of the policy reflects the vision of the municipality that the transition towards the CE is a communal effort of a diverse range of actors. The research resulted in a report called ‘Amsterdam Circulair’ which presented a quick scan and a roadmap. The report was presented in December 2015 to the wider public and was specifically inviting other actors to respond and contribute to the execution of the recommendations (Circle Economy et.al., 2015).

The Amsterdam Circulair report presented challenges as well as possibilities for the CE in the MRA. It provided an overview of material flows within the MRA, and determined which material chains were the most promising to focus on in first instance. The research team consulted a wide range of stakeholders and experts, including utility firms, banking sector,

(28)

transport sector and small and medium enterprises (SMEs). Through this analysis and based on consultation with the respective sectors, the construction sector and the agro food sector were recommended as the first two sectors to focus the policy on (Circle Economy et.al., 2015). Interestingly enough, from the perspective of this research’s focus on co-production with non-state actors, the first step following the presentation of the report was that a broader market consultation commenced. This market consultation was conducted from February until June 2016 by the municipality of Amsterdam, and consisted of over 50 conversations with potential partners from within and outside of the government (Interview AMS 1), additionally an ‘open call’ for input was held through Facebook and LinkedIn which reached 285.000 people and received 80 suggestions. The market consultation in combination with the research report was used as the basis for the Circular Innovation Program that was approved by the municipality council in November 2016 (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2016).

The Innovation Program consists of a range of concrete projects that the municipality will focus on in the 2016-2018 period. These are divided into several categories: projects focusing on gathering evidence for the feasibility of CE; projects focusing on implementation; projects focusing on ‘mainstreaming’ the CE principles; and finally two projects that focus on knowledge gathering. Examples of these projects include 3D printing with local construction waste in the Amsterdam Arena; an experiment with a recycled road; and City-zen, which focuses on promoting sustainable energy use in the city (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2016).

Simultaneous to the process leading to the establishment of the Innovation Program, an implementation plan for a new waste management strategy has been developed. This corresponds to the goal of 65% household waste recycling by 2020, from the 2016 level of 25%. This implementation plan is also part of the CE strategy and was approved by the council in April 2016. It comprises a major re-organization of the municipal waste collection (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2016b). This re-organization has a threefold goal: to increase the waste separation percentages; to increase the efficiency in both financial and environmental terms; and to increase the quality of the waste collection service and other facilities (Interview AMS 2).

Another important aspect of the CE policy is the integration of CE principles in public procurement procedures, as was defined in the sustainability agenda (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2015). Since public procurement is an activity that is executed in virtually all departments of the local government, ranging from ICT services to spatial planning, this constitutes a major

(29)

defined rather broadly, and does not feature obligations for different departments to participate. In practice, the municipality’s approach to this issue is to establish this integration of CE policy in different departments on a case-to-case basis. The CE program manager has the task to approach departments and motivate them to incorporate CE principles in their procedures (Interview AMS 1). Furthermore, through a Community of Practice (COP) initiative of the Amsterdam Economic Board (AMEB) best practices of circular public procurement are shared with other local governments in the MRA.

Within the municipality of Amsterdam the responsibility for the program falls under Alderman Choho, who has the sustainability portfolio, and Alderman Ollongren of Economic Affairs. Although the goal of the CE program is municipality-wide, the responsibility for its execution has been placed with the Department for Spatial Planning & Sustainability. Additionally, the Chief Technology Officer (CTO) plays a central role. The CTO office is a municipality wide team that focuses on innovation across departments, and has its own CE program manager. Furthermore, the AMEB plays an important role in connecting the policy efforts to businesses; knowledge institutes; and other local governments in the MRA. AMEB is a ‘triple helix’ collaboration between government, knowledge institutes and businesses with the goal of tackling complex urban challenges. The collaboration focuses on five topics: digital connectivity, health, mobility, talents for the future and the CE (AMEB, n.d. c).

Timeline CE Amsterdam

March 2014 Elections and first alderman sustainability

March 2015 Agenda Sustainability

December 2015 CE Report

February-March 2016 Market Consultation

April 2016 Waste Separation Implementation Plan

November 2016 CE Innovation Program approved

January 2017 CE Innovation Program launched

(30)

5.2 Interaction with Non-State Actors

The previous section has provided the reader with a background into the different components of Amsterdam’s CE policy, and the key actors involved in the policy. Furthermore, it has shown that non-state actors have been actively involved at multiple instances throughout the development of the policy. This section moves on to explore the interaction between the local government and these non-state actors. This builds on the understanding of new modes of governance that is used in this research, which emphasizes co-production of governance with non-state actors as one of the key features of NMGs. In order to understand how local governments are dealing with NMGs, it is thus of great relevance to explore the actual interaction with non-state actors.

Within the development of Amsterdam’s CE policies so far, it has become apparent that interactions with non-state actors play an important role. The interviews show that the sense of urgency for a defined CE policy was partly caused by developments in the private sector, and specifically amongst the utility firms. Subsequently, the initial research that provides the base for the further governance was conducted through collaboration between three non-state actors: Fabric, TNO and Circle Economy. Following the research report, the municipality of Amsterdam executed an extensive market consultation. Finally, Amsterdam’s CE innovation program consists of numerous collaborations with private actors and knowledge institutes. Two of the central actors that provide a bridge between the governmental policy and market actors are the AMEB and Amsterdam Smart City (ASC). The AMEB is a collaboration between the local governments in the MRA; knowledge institutes; and the private sector (Amsterdam Economic Board, n.d.). ASC is an innovation platform that aims to support and connect innovative start-ups (Amsterdam Smart City, n.d.). The AMEB’s CE business connector works on the scale of the MRA on establishing closer ties between the efforts of the public and the private institutions within the transition towards the CE. This consists of creating platforms for knowledge sharing, amongst others focused on the central topic of the adoption of CE principles in public procurement (Interview AMEB). ASC has a platform function for innovative businesses; through ASC businesses can ask questions and find support for their activities in the MRA. The CTO office of the municipality of Amsterdam is responsible for the CE related interactions through ASC (Interview AMS 1).

(31)

However, as was noted during the interviews with a programmer of Pakhuis de Zwijger, most of the co-production in the context of the CE thus far, has focused on private actors. The AMEB was mentioned as a typical example of an organization built on the triple helix: public sector, private sector and knowledge institutes. The risk of this approach is to neglect to include civil society and bottom-up citizen initiatives. Rather, they argued, a quintuple helix that includes these two groups should be integrated in the governance framework (Interview PdZ 2).

In order to check these critical statements, a closer look was taken at the actual partnerships that are part of the innovation program. In the innovation program 33 projects are presented that will be supported by the municipality until 2018. Table 5.2 pictures how many collaborations are part of this program with each of the groups that are defined in the quintuple helix concept and in addition the category of utility firms, since they are semi-public5_{. Clearly, the collaborations with}

the private sector and knowledge institutes are more numerous than those with civil society actors. Furthermore, no citizen initiatives are part of the innovation program (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2016a). Private Sector Utility Firm Knowledge Institute Civil

Society Citizen Initiative

18 6 16 6 0

Table 5.2 Partnerships CE Amsterdam

However, with the implementation of the waste management reorganization more attention seems to be paid to bottom-up initiatives and civil society. The waste management plan arranges for 20 percent of the total household waste collection to be used as experimental ground for initiatives from outside of the government. The program manager of this waste management re-organization emphasized during an interview conducted for this research that they are explicitly thinking about citizen initiatives, but are also open to other bottom-up initiatives. He expressed

5_{These calculations have been made as follows: for each of the 33 projects it was noted with what type of} actors the collaboration is taking place. If there are multiple private actors collaborating in one project, that counts as one partnership with the private sector. However, if the same company is collaborating in multiple partnerships it can be counted multiple times.

(32)

that the goal of these experiments is to find ideas that can be turned into feasible business cases and be implemented on a larger scale (Interview AMS 2).

The interaction with these bottom-up projects is currently still informally organized, on a case-to-case basis. There are no institutionalized frameworks or mechanisms to find bottom-up initiatives to support. Nor is there an official policy to select projects to support with scaling up. During an interview conducted for this research, the project manager noted that he believes the connection between citizen initiatives and institutions is still too weak. Visibility is an issue on both sides: whereas citizens are often not able to find the support opportunities within the government, the government is still often not aware of relevant bottom up efforts (Interview AMS 2).

The only aspect of co-production that has a specific coordination team is education. This coordination team was installed after many schools in Amsterdam had different requests and initiatives for recycling related activities. A program manager for ‘waste recycling at schools’ was appointed within the municipality in order to provide a uniform response to schools on how to engage with recycling education (Interview AMS 2). This illustrates a responsive attitude amongst the involved policy makers to tailor the institutional framework to the context.

Overall, we can characterize Amsterdam’s interactions with non-state actors in the field of CE as prominent, but mostly informal. The importance of cooperation with non-state actors is emphasized in both the official policy documents, and throughout the interviews. As the example of the school waste education coordination team illustrates, there are signs of a responsive attitude towards immanent challenges within the municipal organization. However, a lack of connection with non-state actors, especially with the activities of civil society and citizens, is noticeable and there are no coordinated mechanisms that ensure responsiveness in all components of the policy.

5.3 European Interaction

As this research focuses on both the interactions of local governments with both non-state actors, and with European institutions, the following section will present the outcomes of this research when it comes to the European dimension of Amsterdam’s CE strategy.

When asked about European interactions, most of the respondents pointed at collaborations with other European cities, either directly or through TMNs like Eurocities. Amsterdam is currently chairing the CE taskforce of Eurocities, which focuses on sharing knowledge amongst

(33)

pioneer cities (Interview Eurocities). Furthermore there exists a knowledge sharing collaboration between Amsterdam, London and Copenhagen (Sustainable Brands, 2016).

Several respondents also mentioned European funding opportunities for CE-related projects. An example of such a project is the City-Zen project, which is affiliated to Amsterdam Smart City. City Zen is an international cooperation with Grenoble, a French city, and partners such as utility firms and the Technical University Delft. The goal of the City-Zen project is to promote sustainable energy usage in cities, through smart innovations such as smart electricity net and energy storage (City Zen, n.d.; Interview AMS 1).

Furthermore, several respondents mentioned the European Waste Hierarchy Framework. This is a framework that presents a hierarchy from least until most environmentally desirable manners of waste management (European Parliament & Council, 2008). However, since Amsterdam easily complies with these goals, it functions as a cognitive tool of a commonly agreed frame of reference for sustainable waste management, rather than as a framework that raised ambition levels (Interview AMS 2; Interview AMEB).

When multi-level governance was mentioned during the interviews, this mostly focused on policy making on the national level. On the national level an important development was the signing of a resource agreement in January 2017. In this agreement, over 180 partners and different levels of government expressed their intention to collaborate in the transition towards a CE. The resource agreement marks the start of a process in which five ‘transition agendas’ will be formulated, in co-production with actors from different backgrounds. It aims to stimulate the developments in the CE field, as well as make new connections between initiatives and partners. It is part of the ‘government-wide’ program for the CE that sets the ambition to realize the CE in the Netherlands by 2050 (Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Milieu, 2017). Interestingly, in Amsterdam this resource agreement is perceived as a more important contextual factor than the European Commission’s 2015 CE package.

One of the reasons that the EC’s CE package is not yet extensively incorporated in Amsterdam’s policies is that the European targets are relatively low compared to Amsterdam’s ambitions. Whereas Amsterdam aims to recycle 65% of all household waste by 2020, the EC aims to reach this target by 2030 (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2015; European Commission, 2015). Both the interviewee at the COR, and the interviewee at Eurocities confirmed that amongst their members large differences exist in terms of the stage of the transition (Interview COR; Interview

European interactions in urban environmental transitions : how Amsterdam and Brussels govern the circular economy